Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2015, 06:40 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(10-12-2015 09:02 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  According to sources, Obama is moving to expand background checks to all gun sales, using executive action and bypassing Congress.

Presidents don't make laws. Every American should be against this. The Constitution doesn't give presidents this authority.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...0-12-31-01

I hope he doesn't go this route.

According to sources? What dat mean? Anything? According to sources He yes that big bad president is after your guns, haven't you seen him prowling around your back yard? According to sources indeed! According to sources The Father in Heaven is watching your every move!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 06:40 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(10-12-2015 09:02 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  According to sources, Obama is moving to expand background checks to all gun sales, using executive action and bypassing Congress.

Presidents don't make laws. Every American should be against this. The Constitution doesn't give presidents this authority.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...0-12-31-01

I hope he doesn't go this route.

According to sources? What dat mean? Anything? According to sources He yes that big bad president is after your guns, haven't you seen him prowling around your back yard? According to sources indeed! According to sources The Father in Heaven is watching your every move!

He gave the source - follow the link.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 09:26 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 06:34 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 06:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  In theory, it has a 600 RPM rate (burst rate), but it has a practical rate of fire of 100 RPM.
Notice the time to change magazines and seat a new cartridge.


One cannot sustain 100 RPM on semi-auto; 40 RPM is a practical semi-auto rate.


Also, what is a "non semi auto version"? Consider
Sure , but the "13 rounds in one second " claim was questioned. Not how much is practical in one minute. You can obviously do 10 rounds in one second, not 1.67

Even 100 practical per minute is way too low. The soldier in the video did 90 rounds in 24 seconds even fumbling the third clip.

The original comparison was wrong. The rate of fire for a musket is for aimed fire, not blasting away.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 12:17 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 06:34 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Sure , but the "13 rounds in one second " claim was questioned. Not how much is practical in one minute. You can obviously do 10 rounds in one second, not 1.67

Even 100 practical per minute is way too low. The soldier in the video did 90 rounds in 24 seconds even fumbling the third clip.

The original comparison was wrong. The rate of fire for a musket is for aimed fire, not blasting away.

In any event there is agreement that modern guns can fire, aimed or blasting away, at a much higher rate than muskets? Why this is relevant is slightly beyond me.

I just think that to not very closely regulate trade in weapons designed with killing (whether human or animal) in mind, designed to make such killing as easy for the killer as possible, is negligent, regardless of what your constitution says. If at odds, there is need for further editing of the document. The situation has changed from the time when it was written and that specific clause seems to be a major problem. The original problem that it was designed to address, it seems to me, it is now hopelessly inadequate for. Other ways to reign in the power of a repressive government supported by the army must be sought.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
15-12-2015, 02:59 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 10:49 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 10:24 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Nice dodge....

You're still overlooking the fact -- yes - FACT -- that the only people that will comply with registering either themselves or their firearms are the LAW ABIDING citizens....

Criminals and whackos, as usual will just keep on doing what they do....

So all your wonderful plans amount to naught...

I'm not dodging shit Biker. Licensing firearms owners is just another method of performing background checks to ensure the person buying the gun is legally allowed to have one. I don't have a problem with doing everything we can to ensure that a convicted violent felon or someone that was just released from the loony bin can't go down to Larry's Pistol and Pawn and pick up an new AR 15, ten 30 round magazines and a thousand rounds of ammo as long as it doesn't affect someone who isn't ineligible from doing so doing so.

Licensing owners does not stop law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms from legal sources. Neither does it stop criminals from getting guns. It does however help to limit them to obtaining those guns from illegal sources.

And you don't find it simpler to register the felons???

I've posted this a couple of times.......

GUN CONTROL --- DOING THE MOST, THAT WILL WORK.

1. Scrap all current gun laws.
2. All convicted felons - and anyone stripped of their gun rights by a court of law shall be required to have identification that clearly states that they are not allowed to purchase, own, or have guns in their possession.
3. ALL gun sales will require a show of identification. It's a felony to sell to someone who has "no guns" on their identification.
4. Make it a felony not to comply with the above parts.


That's all you need. A real solution that does the maximum that can be done to "keep the guns out of the hands of bad people"

It doesn't inconvenience the legitimate, legal buyers. It makes it a felony for "bad people" to have a gun.

But, somehow - that isn't going to be enough for some people......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:27 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 02:59 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 10:49 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I'm not dodging shit Biker. Licensing firearms owners is just another method of performing background checks to ensure the person buying the gun is legally allowed to have one. I don't have a problem with doing everything we can to ensure that a convicted violent felon or someone that was just released from the loony bin can't go down to Larry's Pistol and Pawn and pick up an new AR 15, ten 30 round magazines and a thousand rounds of ammo as long as it doesn't affect someone who isn't ineligible from doing so doing so.

Licensing owners does not stop law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms from legal sources. Neither does it stop criminals from getting guns. It does however help to limit them to obtaining those guns from illegal sources.

And you don't find it simpler to register the felons???

I've posted this a couple of times.......

GUN CONTROL --- DOING THE MOST, THAT WILL WORK.

1. Scrap all current gun laws.
2. All convicted felons - and anyone stripped of their gun rights by a court of law shall be required to have identification that clearly states that they are not allowed to purchase, own, or have guns in their possession.
3. ALL gun sales will require a show of identification. It's a felony to sell to someone who has "no guns" on their identification.
4. Make it a felony not to comply with the above parts.


That's all you need. A real solution that does the maximum that can be done to "keep the guns out of the hands of bad people"

It doesn't inconvenience the legitimate, legal buyers. It makes it a felony for "bad people" to have a gun.

But, somehow - that isn't going to be enough for some people......


Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.


If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.


Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 04:50 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 02:59 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  And you don't find it simpler to register the felons???

I've posted this a couple of times.......

GUN CONTROL --- DOING THE MOST, THAT WILL WORK.

1. Scrap all current gun laws.
2. All convicted felons - and anyone stripped of their gun rights by a court of law shall be required to have identification that clearly states that they are not allowed to purchase, own, or have guns in their possession.
3. ALL gun sales will require a show of identification. It's a felony to sell to someone who has "no guns" on their identification.
4. Make it a felony not to comply with the above parts.


That's all you need. A real solution that does the maximum that can be done to "keep the guns out of the hands of bad people"

It doesn't inconvenience the legitimate, legal buyers. It makes it a felony for "bad people" to have a gun.

But, somehow - that isn't going to be enough for some people......


Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.


If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.


Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

Which makes removing the right to bare arms from your constitution a logical recourse?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 05:28 AM
Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 10:52 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  What's bullshit is you lean on the 2nd Amendment which says nothing about private persons having gun rights.

You are wrong and SCOTUS said so.

SCOTUS also says corporations are people who are allowed free speech through bribing politicians. Your argument is rendered invalid.

And:
[Image: c63e6c91b715ccd4c94deaffd673b1a6.jpg]

There really is no more excuse to continue to manufacture weapons of mass destruction for private citizens. Sorry, not sorry. Drinking Beverage

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 04:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Which makes removing the right to bare arms from your constitution a logical recourse?


The Constitution is an amenable document, so that is an option. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's current wording protects personal ownership, so instead of arguing pointless semantics over how the court may or may not be wrong, the easiest way to alter the current ruling is to change the document itself.

We've both outlawed alcohol, and repealed that prohibition. No right is absolute, they all have restrictions. Those can be tested and established by the courts establishing legal precedent, and likewise you can amend the laws themselves if the court strikes a law as unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Our first amendment has been challenged with every new medium, seeing films, television, and most recently video-games having their first amendment protection affirmed by the Supreme Court. Likewise they've also established precedent and test for determining what is, and is not, protected speech; because not all speech has first amendment protections, nor does such protections guarantee access to a megaphone and a soapbox.

If the second amendment is for personal ownership, and the intent of that ownership was for equipping and maintaining the potential for a citizens militia to challenge the government? Is that still a feasible goal? Is it still something we desire? Are there better ways to limit or check the power of the government? Are the current costs worth it?

Likewise, if people want to argue that we need more guns to solve the violence issue, the next question is, how many? With 300 million firearms in the US already, how many more would be needed to reach the critical mass that would finally see an increase in security and decrease in violence? Would that be enough to warrant the statistically inevitable rise of firearm accidents? What will the government be willing to do to reach this critical mass? Are we willing to spend government funds on ensuring everyone has a gun, ammo, and proper training; yet our education and infrastructure are in shambles and we're the only industrialized first world power without universal healthcare?


Guns or butter.


I think we could deal with a lot less of the former, and far more of the later.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-12-2015, 05:32 AM
Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 11:18 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 10:52 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  What's bullshit is you lean on the 2nd Amendment which says nothing about private persons having gun rights.

That's your opinion. It's an opinion the courts and most Americans, including non gun owners, disagree with.

[Image: individual%20right%20poll_zps98gyjqq5.jpg]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

There are opinions and there are facts. The fact is the wording of the 2nd Amendment does not make individual gun ownership a right. There is another fact: the gun lobby will always distort the true meaning.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: